Interrogations-and-Confessions-Handbook

618 A Psychology of Interrogations and Confessions
Having evaluated many other experts’ reports, my two greatest concerns regarding
expert testimony are the poor quality of some of the assessments and
the way in which psychological and psychiatric evidence can be misrepresented
and abused by experts and legal advocates. The psychological evaluation of
cases involving disputed confessions is complicated. It requires considerable
knowledge, experience and expertise in the fields of forensic psychology, interrogations
and confessions, psychometric testing and clinical evaluation. Poor
psychological testimony falls into two overlapping categories: first, evidence
that fails to inform the court of the relevant information; and second, evidence
that misleads the court. The main reasons for poor psychological evidence are
poor preparation, lack of knowledge, experience and thoroughness, inappropriate
use or misinterpretation of test results, failure to place test results appropriately
in the context of the case and bias (Gudjonsson & Haward, 1998).
In addition, with the courts becoming more receptive to psychological evidence,
defence lawyers may on occasions abuse such evidence in order to secure acquittals
(Gudjonsson & MacKeith, 1997). Colluding with such practice undermines
the integrity of the expert and the profession as a whole. As Florian (1999) so
elegantly put it,
A delicate balance must be struck between protecting all citizens from involuntarily
making self incriminating statements while at the same time not allowing
mental illness to serve as a shield against the consequences of a truly voluntary
confession (p. 292).
The focus in this book is on two different legal systems: the law and practice
in England (and Wales) and North America, respectively. There are important
differences between these two legal systems with regard to both the
admissibility of a confession, decided at a suppression (voire dire) hearing, and
the admissibility of expert testimony. In England there is more protection available
for suspects detained for questioning than there is in the USA. A major
problem with American cases is that the questions and answers obtained during
the interrogation are often not fully recorded and it is impossible to verify
what exactly was said and done. It is the defendant’s word against that of the
police, which almost invariably goes in the favour of the police. A tape recording
of the entire interrogation process is invaluable and offers the single most important
protection for detainees, and for the integrity of the police. Of course,
mandatory tape-recording is not a foolproof procedure, because some officers
compensate by shifting suggestions and pressure from the formal police interview
to other parts of the investigative process (e.g. informal conversations and
suspects being placed under pressure prior to or between interviews).
The English courts are less tolerant than American courts of police impropriety.
PACE and the Codes of Practice for English police officers provide an
important control and influence over their behaviour in relation to the arrest,
detention and interrogation of suspects. The most important components in
relation to detention and interrogation are the following.
� Mandatory tape recording of suspect interviews.
� Improved access to solicitors.